@molytov @ity I think there's some things I could have expressed better, but I won't say they didn't come out swinging rather than have a conversation. The first thing I got essentially boiled down to abuse. I'm exhausted at FOSS spaces being "you want change, do it yourself. Look. we gave you half the car. Now clap."
@fireborn @molytov @ity TBH, what leaves more of a bitter taste in my mouth is the repeated assertion that if disabled users express any degree of frustration, those users will be the catalyst for any subsequent reduction in accessibility efforts because of how "demotivating" it is for the team. Holding one person responsible for deprioritisation affecting a wider group isn't what inclusion looks like.
i've worked with teams before that insist on playing the victim through walls of text designed to batter the opposition into guilt ridden submission. It very rarely ends well.
@jscholes @molytov @ity I did end up redacting the post for my own reasons, one of those being that some of the things I said were objectively incorrect because I didn't have context that I was given later. I think I was interacting with 2 different people, one person who was taking that approach, and someone else who was much more understanding of where the original comments came from. I'm hopeful that some actual progress can come of this now that the right questions are being asked, and I don't think there's a need to leave something in place that has incorrect info in it. Of course, I'll continue to call out bad accessibility when ever and wherever I see it, but in future, I'll at least calm down first, like I did for the linux situation.
@fireborn @molytov @ity Very fair. But while I support a team's right to defend themselves or correct misunderstandings, they'd also do well to consider who's running the social media accounts with the project's name on it and how, with an eye to creating more proportionate responses to the actions of a single person.
Edited 41d ago